Running head: BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 1

Between freedom and regulation: reflections on the communication landscape in Uganda

Professorial Inaugural Lecture

Monica B. Chibita

Uganda Christian University

17th January 2019

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 2

Abstract

Keywords: media, communication, regulation, landscape, new media

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 3

Heading 1

Presentation-UCU Template

Greetings and introduction

Judges, Bishops, Clergy, Professors, partners of the UCU from within and without

Uganda, University Council and Cabinet, UCU Management and staff, Professors and staff from

different Universities, Management and staff of UCU, colleagues from FJMC, former and

current fellow Board Members, Old Boys and Girls from the many schools I have attended and

from Makerere University, Alumni of the University of Iowa and the University of South Africa,

OBs and OGs from all levels, all our partners, our alumni, ladies and gentlemen …Thank you for

choosing to here today.

Special recognition

In a special way, I would like to recognize and thank Akiiki Zebiah Banura, my mother

and my friend; my husband, My Lord, the Justice Mike Chibita, our children-Benezeri, Semu,

Joshua and Vanessa. Apologies from Maria who could not join us because she had taken another

day off earlier this week to attend Justice Chibita’s swearing in. I take this opportunity to

congratulate Justice Chibita, Justice Tuhaise and Justice Muhanguzi upon their recent

appointment to the Supreme Court. Thank you for joining us today.

A warm welcome to all my relatives and dear friends from Fort-Portal and from Butaleja,

my brothers and sisters, cousins, friends from all stages and all walks of life. I would also like to

mention a group of special friends called the Ka-chai Group, another group of special friends

called the KBC couples’ Committee, the Kira Cell Group that meets at our home every Monday,
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 4

Pastors and members of Kampala Baptist Church, the Matures Fellowship, Women in

Institutions of Higher Learning affiliated with Higher Education Research Services (HERS-East

Africa), colleagues from all campuses and colleges of Uganda Christian University, members of

the Faculty of Journalism, Media and Communication, the Royals team of UCU and everyone of

you who spared their time to come and celebrate with us today.

I am indebted to my parents, the late Ernest Balya Apuuli, and my mother, Akiiki as well

as the Late Abbooki Charles Mawenu for supporting me through school. I am equally indebted to

the Government of Uganda, The United States Embassy through the Fulbright Programme and

the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Norwegian programme for… (NORHED). I bring

greetings from our partners at NLA College in Norway and the University of KwaZulu Natal.

Finally I thank UCU for organizing such an elegant function today. Thank to the DVCAA, Dean

SRPS and your teams that were behind this. Finally, thank you to the Communications task-

force.

Ambitions

As a young person, sometimes you are not very clear what you want to be when you

grow up. I dreamt first of being a nurse because I liked their uniform; then my Dad rebuked me

and said “why not aim at being a medical doctor?” My interest shifted and I wanted to be a

lawyer because it seemed highly prestigious and intelligent. Then I dreamt of being an altar girl

because I had watched my uncle, now Monsignor Thomas Kisembo, say Mass at our house every

evening when he lived with us briefly. Then I had a brush with real poverty, and felt called to be

a Social Worker. We all go through this. I have no reason to doubt, though, that I ended up in a

good place.
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 5

As you may have heard in the citation, I started working in Higher Education in earnest in 1994.

By that time I had very short stints as a secondary teacher at Kings’ College Buddo (wave) and

as a Youth Worker. I did not start getting purposeful about academic growth, though, until

around 1996. At that time I was a Lecturer [the academic ranks in Uganda are Assistant Lecturer,

Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Associate Professor, Full Professor]. You may have read this

somewhere, but Dr. Lugalambi and I, full of ambition, each open a file labelled ACADEMIC

GROWTH in capital letters and we vowed to hold each other accountable (thank you, George).

At that time I also got to know then Dr. Edith Natukunda-Togboa who challenged me to begin

writing papers to present at academic conferences. Dr. Abaasi Kiyimba, then my head of

Department in the Literature Department which incubated the Mass Communication Department

at Makerere encouraged me to set publication targets for each year. Dr. Jack Smith challenged

me to read widely, and to keep growing not only mentally, but also spiritually (Thank you Jack).

Much later on, our friend Uncle Imran Ahmed, kept asking, “When are you becoming a

Professor like my father? Thank you Imran.

Several other people have played key roles on this journey. My supervisor Prof Pieter

Fourie, my co-supervisor, Prof Murindwa Rutanga, Professor Mary Okwakol, who gave me the

courage to find a balance between family and career development instead of seeing the two as an

either/or proposition. We only had one comprehensive conversation at her home one day, but

that conversation was just what I needed at that my moment. Prof. Tawana Kupe, now Vice-

Chancellor of the University of Pretoria, my friend, Prof Arie de Beer, my colleagues at the East

Africa Communications Association, my colleague, Christopher Muhoozi, who early in my

career helped me mystify fieldwork. Then there are the many partners in research, people I have

co-published with, Prof. Abiodun Salawu who shares my interest in the indigenous language
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 6

media. I want to single out Richard Kibombo with whom I worked on two major studies. There

were many other people along the way, some encouraging, others threatening, others confusing.

I mention all these people, because their input played a role in my journey to where I am

today, and I am grateful. Thank you very much.

It has been 24 years now and here we are. All I can say is “Mukama Asiimwe Praise the

Lord.”

What is an inaugural lecture?

I recently found out that an inaugural lecture is not the same as a conference paper. In

preparing for this lecture, I learnt that the purpose of an inaugural lecture is not to share specific

research results the way you do at an academic conference, crack a theory or mesmerize people

with complicated words, concepts or formulae. It is rather, to give accountability to the public for

what you have been doing all this time, what you have been thinking, speaking and writing

about, and if possible what your future plans are as an academic and to do this in such a way that

it makes sense to everyone in the audience. This is particularly important if you studied on tax-

payers money like I did.

It is also important for people outside the walls of the University to understand that when

we do research, we do it not just to make a name or get promotions, but to contribute to the pool

of ideas in the public square, and hopefully make a lasting contribution to the way the world

perceives and does things in our particular field. The inaugural lecture is, therefore, an

opportunity to close the gap between the ivory tower and the public square. Also, the inaugural

lecture is a joyous occasion that allows a University to “launch” its new Professor with a degree

of celebration.
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 7

I started working at the University a few months after the first private radio station

(Radio Sanyu) came on air, and just over a year after the first experiment in private television. It

was exciting to be in the field of communication at that time. Makerere was the only place you

could obtain a degree in Mass Communication. Journalism was not exactly the profession a

mother would recommend to her child, and people were still beginning to make sense of it.

Except for those who worked for the government outlets, there were very few journalists with

more than rudimentary training. The country was coming out of chaotic period and was trying to

recover. Already, there were tensions as the few highly trained journalists like Charles Onyango

Obbo, Robby Muhumuza, David Ouma Balikowa, Peter Mwesige, Kyazze Simwogerere,

Onapito Ekomoloit…fought to raise the bar and to secure more freedom for the media, while the

others basked in their newfound seemingly boundless freedom.

Documenting the history of our media has fascinated me, and practically every

publication of mine starts with some kind of historicization of the media. Last year, I finally

compressed as much history as I could into an article and published it with the Sage International

Encyclopedia of Mass Media and Society in the spirit of ne jamais pas (may we never forget). I

draw from this article in my historical overview here as well as from my work with the

Broadcasting Council and later Uganda Communications Commission, and my brief experience

in media governance with the Vision Group, and Media Development with the African Centre

for Media Excellence.

The context of communication

Since 1993, the media sector has been liberalized, opening up to private ownership of the

broadcast media and telecommunications. Global trends such as convergence have affected the

media landscape. According to the Ipsos Connect 2017 Uganda Media Landscape report, radio
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 8

by the end of 2017 reached 90% of Uganda’s population. This figure had not changed much by

2019. Television reached 35% and the print media, 15%. In terms of preference, print is now the

least preferred medium. Radio is the most preferred, followed by television, followed by online

media. There are reasons for this pattern, but we will return to those later.

The Uganda Broadcasting Corporation, which is mandated to operate as a public

broadcaster, has fallen short of this ideal because of several problems including poor funding,

poor infrastructure, perennial mismanagement, and a lack of clarity on their editorial

independence. There seem to be serious efforts to address these challenges. As journalist like to

end their news items, “It remains to be seen whether….” According to the communications

regulator, there were 258 operational radio stations (mostly Frequency Modulation [FM]); and

several free-to-air, terrestrial, digital satellite, and cable TV stations by September 2017. The

numbers for radio were up to 305, and 51 for television by June 2019. These figures are based on

transmitters and therefore include booster stations. Four Pay TV service providers had

countrywide coverage while others had a more limited reach. ?? mobile telephone providers.

The predominant mode of financing for the traditional media is advertising, while

subscription plays a bigger role with the telecommunications companies. In 2015 Uganda

switched from analog to digital to meet an International Telecommunications Union deadline.

Although the implementation of this conversion has not yet reached 100%, all television service

providers are mandated to go digital and the analog signal has been switched off.

The Uganda Communications Commission further reports that in 2017, the total number

of mobile and fixed telephone lines grew from the previous year’s 23 million to nearly 25. There

was a corresponding decline in fixed line subscriptions. International and roaming traffic have

also grown steadily although WhatsApp, Viber, and Skype, being cheaper, have eaten into these.
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 9

As international data bandwidth in the country has improved, the prices of phones have dropped,

and 3G and 4G coverage has increased, there has been a corresponding increase in internet use,

as well as a drop in the price of data transmission. By the end of December 2019, Internet World

Statistics reported Uganda’s internet penetration at 40.5%, with 2.6 million Facebook users.

These figures will only hold for a while before they change.

These developments, coupled with the convergence of traditional media and

telecommunications, have had a significant impact on participation in public debate through the

media in some sectors of the population. Not only is it now easier for journalists to file local

news from anywhere to any newspaper, radio station, or TV station across the country, but

ordinary people are able to participate in programmes and contribute content with the aid of the

phone and the internet. “Traditional” media houses typically have a thread of conversation

running on the social media for any major story, or indeed for any story that the public may be

interested in. This not only boosts numbers for purposes of advertising, it also builds cohesion

among audiences. It further enables ordinary people to participate, with minimum censorship, in

debate on issues that concern them. Besides, such features as Facebook Live enable video live-

streaming. A variety of other mobile apps make TV stations accessible on mobile phones and

various portable platforms. YouTube also gives media owners additional access to large

audiences. All this has made the phenomenon of “citizen journalism” (the creation,

dissemination and analysis of news by the general public) a reality. It has also confused the

regulatory space a little, as we shall soon see.

Increased access to the internet and the accessibility of mobile phones, however, for the

most part enhances the participation of those who can afford smart phones or bandwidth or what

we call data. Also, these new communication opportunities have a tendency to fragment
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 10

audiences, making it harder for meaningful public opinion on any matter to crystallise. [Recall

birango on radio Uganda]. Now, where do you start? This is a challenge for advertisers who need

a mass audience listening to the same message. It is also a challenge for government, and for

politicians.

As noted earlier, collectively Ugandans speak a minimum of 36 languages and dialects

including English and Kiswahili, the two official languages. I keep hearing different figures on

this. Despite the historical advantage of English-language use, since the 1990s there has been a

growing emphasis on individual ethnic identity. Hence, relatively few Ugandans speak or

understand Kiswahili and I doubt that there is a single Kiswahili only radio station. There is a

growing number of radio and television stations broadcasting in the various indigenous

languages as well as newspapers in each of the major regional languages of Uganda. Most pay

TV is in English, and most market research so far indicates that there is on aggregate more

minutes spent using English than any of the local languages including Luganda. However, both

the Vision Group and the Nation Media Group, the leading media conglomerates, own a

combination of English and local-language stations because research has shown that particularly

in the Central and Western region, people prefer to receive information in their language.

Media Ownership

My research has also taken me into the area of media ownership because media ownership is a

major factor in creating a diverse communication environment. It is clear that the print media in

Uganda have historically mostly been privately owned. With the liberalisation of the media,

politicians, private business people, faith-based organisations, and to a limited extent,

communities joined the business. However, while there are many radio and television stations,

there seems to be little diversity in ownership. Study after study, including the two NEMPS
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 11

studies funded by government shows that government still commands a big stake in the media,

owning 53% of the Vision Group, the largest multi-media entity in the country. The Nation

Media Group also has significant interests in radio, television and the print media.

Several media that are called “community” media are funded and controlled by churches

or non-governmental organisations rather than the communities they purport to serve. The

number of media houses owned by faith-based organisations (mostly Christian and to a limited

extent Muslim) has been growing steadily. There are also intersections between these categories

of owners which further complicate the equation. To understand these, I have relied on the

literature of Critical Political Economy.

Apart from the state broadcaster, most media are based in Kampala, the capital city, or

one of the other major towns. However, due to the challenges of surviving in a fragmented

market, there are increasing instances of acquisition of smaller stations based upcountry by

bigger media entities based in Kampala. This raises the issue of how local are our local stations?

Karugire, Isooba and other (media) historians reports that in the early years of Uganda’s

media, entrepreneurs were allowed to set up newspapers without much interference. As the

colonial government observed a growing political consciousness fueled mainly by the indigenous

language press and exposure to different experiences through the Second World War, it started

clamping down on “troublesome” media houses. By independence there was one state

broadcaster owned and controlled by the colonial government, and three newspapers.

Post-independence, the print media came increasingly under state control while

government cemented its influence. This was easy to justify in the interest of unity, national

integration, and development. Following the 1967 political crisis that is commonly known as the

Buganda crisis, fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, were “suspended” and
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 12

more oppressive media laws enacted. It became easy to punish errant media houses with fines

detention of senior managers and denial of advertising revenue. Parliament was also weakened as

the lines between parties were blurred by political deals. According to Zie Gariyo in his book

titled “The Media, Constitutionalism and Democracy in Uganda”, by the time Obote was

deposed by Idi Amin in 1971, there was little public dissent, and state media had become

mouthpieces of government. Private media had been effectively silenced. Most publications had

resorted to public relations or focused on fashion and sports.

The post-independence governments took over the state broadcaster and maintained

absolute control over it. The colonial government had enacted a number of laws, some of which

were adopted wholesale by the post-independence governments. Among these were the Penal

Code Act of 1950, which criminalized causing annoyance to foreign princes and potentates; libel

and defamation; sedition; the publication of false news. There were other laws ostensibly aimed

at maintaining law and order but often used by post-independence governments to curtail the

freedom of media or media personnel perceived to be hostile to the government in power. These

included the Television Licensing Act of 1963; the Press Censorship and Correction Ordinance

of 1964; the Newspaper and Publications Act of 1964; the Official Secrets Act (1964), the

Emergency Powers Act of 1966; and the Public Order and Security Act of 1967. Other

oppressive laws came up during the reign of Idi Amin. The most significant piece of legislation

was notice Number 1 of 1971, which suspended Article 1 of the Constitution—which had

articulated the supremacy of the Constitution. This gave Amin sweeping powers to amend the

constitution at will. The Newspapers and Publications (Amendment) Decree No. 35 of 1972

mandated the minister in charge of information to close down, “in the public interest,” any
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 13

publication, with no prior notice. The second Obote government (1980–1985) continued apects

of this approach to media freedom, expelling foreign journalists and banning newspapers.

Museveni’s government, on assuming office, promised to restore freedoms, but the

media’s fortunes under Museveni, some argue, have been mixed. Tabaire’s article titled the

Media and Public Repression in Uganda: Back to the Future expounds this point. While there has

been significant growth, there have also been instances of closure of media houses, the arrest or

harassment of journalists and the use of other extra-judicial means to regulate the media.

Nevertheless, it should be said that the NRM government, more than any other, has given

litigation a chance in dealing with errant or offensive media.

Under Museveni, the press has had a degree of editorial independence. However, the

NRM government has been uncompromising with the media when they have published stories

that are deemed to threaten “public order” and “national security.” Needless to say the

journalism fraternity has often questioned the interpretation rendered to the terms “public order

and national security” of these terms.

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, promulgated in 1995, guarantees media

freedom and access to information. Notwithstanding this liberal constitution, however, there are

other laws in place which often have the effect of curtailing the freedoms promised by the

constitution. The print media, for instance, are still mainly governed by the Press and Journalist

Act first enacted in 1995, soon after the liberalization of the broadcast sector. This law

establishes the Media Council as a regulatory body mandated to licence journalists, promote

ethics and professionalism, and provide for the training of journalists. The law gives the minister

in charge of information powers that would make it difficult for the regulatory body to operate

independently. The need for all journalists to be licensed annually by a government body,
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 14

however, is viewed by some as a possible entry point for unwarranted government control.

Although the industry in 2009 established an independent media council in a bid to pre-empt

government interference with their independence, this body has, for a combination of reasons

including inadequate funding and management, not gained much recognition by the media

fraternity.

We know that the broadcast media are currently governed by the Uganda

Communications Act of 2013, which merged the regulatory bodies for broadcasting and

telecommunications. Although this law provides a regulatory framework for the broadcast media

and potentially the internet and mobile phones, it too is premised on the notion of a powerful

minister, who may give directions to the regulatory body with which the latter are bound to

comply.

Ideally, laws emerge out of policy and their provisions should be aligned with the parent

policy. However, the National Broadcasting policy (2004), for instance, came into being years

after the Electronic Media Statute (1996)- which later became The Electronic Media Act Cap

104 (2000). Consequently, many of the policy’s provisions (for instance about public

broadcasting and media ownership) were quite progressive and perhaps more sensitive to the

changes in the media environment than the 1995 and 1996 Laws. Until the law was repealed in

2013, however, these provisions had no legal effect.

There are also other laws on the landscape directly or indirectly affecting the working of

the media and the newly include the Official Secrets Act 1964, the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002, the

Right of Access to Information Act 2005, the Presidential Elections Act 2005, the Parliamentary

Elections Act 2005, the Referendum and Other Provisions Act 2005, the Copyright and

Neighbouring Rights Act 2006, the Interception of Communication Act 2012, the Public Order
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 15

Management Act 2013, the Uganda Communications Act 2013, and the Anti-Pornography Act

2014.

This array of laws may have some enabling elements, but seen as a whole, may also

potentially be confusing and constraining for journalists as they may have difficulty figuring

out which law will catch them when. While, for instance, for the most part since 1986, the

government of Uganda has given journalists and media organisations considerable latitude to

execute their roles, government has on several occasions arrested journalists, confiscated

equipment, temporarily halted media operations, or jailed media personnel for publication

offenses. Some may say they deserved it, but organisations like HRNJ have been able to

demonstrate where government has overstepped or abused its regulatory mandate.

Similarly, while the media in the urban centres enjoy a relatively high degree of freedom,

their upcountry counterparts and especially indigenous-language radio stations, which reach the

majority of ordinary Ugandans, frequently suffer direct interference into their editorial

independence from local government officials.

Media Consumption Habits

While many Ugandans say they are aware of the existence of at least one of the newspapers on

the market, a lot fewer report being regular readers of any. The practice of sharing newspapers is

also so rampant that some media houses staple the papers before selling them to compel people

to buy individual copies and hopefully read them. During these sharing sessions, often people are

reading headlines and looking at pictures. This low news reading (or news buying) culture may

be attributed to affordability, low literacy levels, or a poor reading culture. The stapling solution

seems to be Uganda’s way of dealing with this challenge.

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 16

The tabloid media (like The Red Pepper and The Sun) tend to be more popular than the

mainstream papers, despite public complaints about their ethical quality. In addition, the

indigenous-language newspapers especially in the Central region, are better read than their

English counterparts.

Radio remains the most popular medium, and is accessible to over 90% of the population.

However, Television viewing is growing steadily, particularly with digitization, but is only

accessible to one third of the population. Most people listen to radio in the course of the day

because it allows them to work at the same time and watch more TV towards the evening. Even

though the top two stations as far as advertising revenue is concerned are often English stations,

on average the local-language stations attract more advertising than the English ones.

News is the most popular type of programme, followed by sports. The greatest

consumption of the internet is in Kampala, where the infrastructure is stronger and more people

own mobile phones and can afford so spare some money to buy data. While there does not seems

to be any major gender or economic disparities in the use of the internet, there are age disparities,

the largest number of internet consumers going by the latest survey figures (IPSOS 2019) being

aged between 15 an.

While it may seem like there is of political debate on the internet, research I have

conducted in all the regions of Uganda shows that a majority of Ugandans use the internet for

keeping up social contacts rather than for research, debate, or civic participation. This is

consistent with what market research surveys show.

Economically, the communication landscape has also changed. There has been growth

both in mobile money subscription and transactions, which has improved access to financial
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 17

services for many Ugandans. Unfortunately this has also negatively impacted the volume of

business for banks.

Digitisation

But perhaps the most momentous developments on the communication landscape in the

last few years have been around the shift from the old analogue forms of communication to the

digital, and the related changes in what audiences like to consume and how they want it served.

Fourie (2017) argues that the digital communication culture is “a direct consequence of the rapid

development and application of ICT in post-modern society.” In trying to define pos-modern

society, Dan Laughey (2009) says postmodern society is about “…mass consumerism, mass

literacy, technological innovation, globalization and populism, among other things.” I will not

allow Laughey to detain us. In particular, though, Fourie, in a chapter titled “Social media and

mediated communication in postmodern society” talks about two important and closely related

developments: digitisation and convergence which relate to technological innovation. These, if I

may be allowed a cliché here, “throw a spanner in the works” for traditional regulation.

Digitisation

Digitisation is the process of organizing information (digitally) so that it is easier to

convert and use across different media. Such information is also better in quality in the sense that

it does not degenerate when you transfer it from one medium to another. Previously the more

times you dubbed music off a cassette tape, the less clear it sounded. It was a privilege to own

the ORIGINAL. Today you can go back to the original as many time as you want. You also need

much less space to store digitized information, which is why we can store so much more on a

memory card than an LP record or cassette tape. [compare storage capacities].

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 18

Convergence

Convergence, which comes with digitisation refers to the coming together of what used to

be separate technologies of broadcasting and telecommunications. This coming together makes it

possible to produce, distribute data, information and entertainment and entertainment. Because of

this marriage between broadcasting and telecommunications we are able to enjoy access to vast

databases (electronic libraries or granaries of knowledge). We are able to enjoy pay television

like DSTV and High Definition television (if you can pay, that is). We can built maintain and

terminate relationships across the world through social media (remember how long it took to

connect to a pen-pal? And how you waited to hear back from them? I also remember in the

1990s how long-distance friendship was hard work. We were engaged to get married, and

my fiancé the and I had a disagreement over a philosophical matter just before I left to go

and study in the US. It was so complicated to resolve that little conflict [we depended on

airmail being delivered to your house; if one airmail got lost, communication broke down

you had to start the conversation again; then you were accused of ignoring people or being

non-communicative etc.] Compare that to today’s instant friending and unfriending, blocking,

joining and exiting groups at the click of a button etc. Thanks to the convergence of

technologies, we now also enjoy multimedia services (where the same information in pictures or

words can be transmitted on a variety of platforms like the telephone, television, radio, the

tablet/Ipad etc]. In other words, we have one-stop information markets or supermarkets.

I remember we used to have photography as one of the areas of specializations in Mass

Communication, apart from print and broadcasting. Imagine if we churned out graduates of

photojournalism today, how desperately irrelevant they would be [ media need multi-taskers;

but also amateurs can take great photographs. You would need to have some other skill to be
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 19

employed]. So, just like that, our communication landscape has changed. We can no longer

expect that a media company deals in text, video or audio alone. Most if not all, deal in

everything. Training must prepare people to be versatile. A communication professional or a

journalist should be able to attend this function and go back to his/her editor with a story for the

newspaper, a clip for radio, some footage for television, and a story to be uploaded online.

Totally unheard of 10 years ago, this is now the norm.

We now talk about the “new media” to mean all internet-enabled means of

communication. You may have noticed that just as the technology has changed and is able to do

more and more amazing things, key audiences, like the youth have also “moved on.” By their

sheer numbers, the youth have become a factor media that owners, advertisers, church leaders

and yes, politicians cannot ignore. Any media research on audience patterns must pay special

attention to the youth category.

If you check properly, your media consumption habits have changed as well. So have

mine. If I know I can read about the cabinet reshuffle on my phone before I go to bed, why wait

for the paper tomorrow? I may eventually read the paper, but it will be for analysis, profiles etc.

Not just for the facts, because I got them before I went to bed last night.

Today’s audiences know the capacity of the “new” media, so they expect more. They

are demanding, they are impatient, they are unforgiving, and they are bold. Most

importantly they are no longer just consumers of content packaged by a professional in a media

organization, they are producers or co-producers of content themselves in form or blogs, posts,

tweets, and volunteer media content sometimes referred to as citizen journalism. If you want to

know about citizen journalism watch Bukedde and notice how the camera person manages to

capture the moment when a domestic fight breaks out in some remote village. Or just at the
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 20

moment when a witchdoctor’s mayembe are being “ unveiled? Or just as an arsonist sets a house

ablaze, Bukedde is there to bring you the story. This is often because, using modern

communication tools, someone on the scene has tipped a journalist off, or has collaborated with

someone on the scene and in the know who has used their mobile phone to take dramatic video

which they then share or sell to media houses. This story could reach millions of people in

seconds as well. Of course there are unresolved ethical concerns with such journalism. The

accompanying dramatic narrative could be off target, and the damage would be that much more

complicated to undo because of how fast and how the story has moved.

The other major change that has taken place with audiences is that they expect their

media to be interactive. They expect feedback and they expect it now. If it is news, they have

an opinion on it, and they want all their friends to agree or disagree with them. If it is a post they

want you to like it, retweet it, share it, anything. So we have groups, we have chat-rooms, we

have fora and so on and these are all part of the pool of information available to the public.

The changes in audiences I have described (and there are more) are not only a reaction to

technological advancement, but also an outcome of broader societal changes. One may argue that

Ugandan society is still, in many ways, a traditional society. But it seems to me that there is a

social shift that is not limited to the urban areas any more but is fast penetrating the rural areas

which used to be the headquarters of “traditional society.”

The reason these changes interest me is not because people can now have 4 million

followers on Twitter, or thousands of friends on Facebook. It is because the way this

emerging communication landscape is managed potentially has a bearing on our democracy.

People need information to participate meaningfully in debate and in decision-making. Joseph

Stiglitz argues that without information, “people cannot demand change or accountability. They
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 21

know no better.” In other words, if you do not want people to ask questions, deny them

information.

A free communication landscape should contribute to a more informed polity. Such

a polity should then be better equipped to hold their representative accountable. I have

argued in most of my publications therefore, that is difficult to have democracy without a

free flow of information and accountability.

I now invite you to join me on a tour of the last part of this paper which focuses on the

implications of all these changes for our democracy.

The media and democracy

In 2015, I published a chapter titled Indigenous Language media and freedom of

expression in Uganda in a book co-edited with Prof. Abiodun Salawu. In it I tried, like many

scholars before me have tried, to make a connection between the media and democracy.

Defining democracy

There have been many attempts at defining democracy, but there are a few elements that

most scholars seem to agree on. Diamond and Morlino (2005, p.ix-xliii) called them Lowest

Common Denominators and they summarise them as follows:

i) Democracy means greater equality of opportunity;

ii) Democracy means strengthening the rule of law;

iii) Democracy means greater citizen participation in all aspects of government

decisions;

iv) Democracy means all sound (maybe not frivolous ones ) political proposals

are free to compete on a level playing field

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 22

v) Democracy means there is vertical accountability (people holding rulers

accountable) and horizontal accountability (different arms and agencies of government

holding each other accountable) to improve levels of stewardship of public resources.

The media, if properly regulated, can play a key role in delivering the above six Lowest

Common Denominators. They do this by:

i)being a watchdog over those in power (see also Leibman 2005; Curran 2000 and

Cooper 2006;

ii) Facilitating open political debate on issues of governance (Garnham 1995; Mwesige

2004; Nabunya 2009; Meadows, 2013;

iii) setting the agenda for policy-makers, i.e. tipping them off on what to prioritise

because they are in touch with the ordinary people. (Nowak-Teter 2018).

For the media to play these roles optimally, it is important that they are structurally

diverse and permit the expression of diverse political and cultural perspectives. This has not

changed even with the advent of the new media. Structural diversity relates, for instance to

who owns the media, who controls them, how are they distributed, who they reach with

what technical quality etc. It is also important that the media are regulated. Content

diversity is different from content diversity, but the two are inseparable. There may be plenty of

content, but is there real variety?

Current regulation debates rotate around not just how the media are regulated, but who

regulates the media: the state, the media industry which includes media owners, journalist

associations, the community, all media produsers (bloggers, tweeters), or a combination?

Media freedom and media diversity, and democracy

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 23

All my research has concerned itself in one or another, with the concepts of media

freedom, media diversity and democracy, with regulation as a cross-cutting issue.

The modern channels of communication sit at the centre of debates on media freedom,

freedom of expression and democracy. Media freedom in our field is understood by many to

mean freedom of the media to operate without undue interference from government, from big

business or from other powerful forces. This freedom is seen as central to the media’s role in

supporting democracy.

Media freedom

Media freedom is closely linked to media diversity in terms of both content and access.

Media freedom makes it possible for voices which are not all singing one chorus to be heard

in and through the media. It facilitates the co-existence of divergent views. One might think

of an orchestra, but orchestras usually make an effort to harmonise their voices. In the

context of democracy you may not achieve harmony, buy the orchestra should be allowed

to go on. Media are considered diverse if

i) the media are able to freely reflect the preferences of the population and

ii) populations of divergent preferences have equal access to the media. Media

diversity therefore is dependent on a degree of media freedom.

I must agree with Van Cuilenberg McQuail (2016), therefore, that for us to be able to say

the media, which dominate our communication landscape, are diverse, there should not just be an

improvement in technology, or an increase in number of channels on and offline, but there

should be evidence of tolerance of difference in the media. Otherwise we might as well go

back to having one radio station, one TV station, and possibly one newspaper.
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 24

In this regard I have also, together with my former student (Chibita and Mfaume 2011)

written about the fact that perhaps it is no longer a viable project to force all debate into one

unified public sphere but rather allow for multiple and parallel little spheres. Perhaps these little

sphere would eventually identify a few things on which they all agree and stop focusing on their

differences. Perhaps then, would have an idea what the true public interest is.

Freedom of expression

Freedom of expression, which is related to media freedom, on the other hand, goes one

layer deeper than media freedom. It refers to the actual freedom to communicate or exchange

information through a variety of channels. It refers, if you wish, to agency. There may be 303

radio stations, 50 TV stations and many internet-supported channels to enable people to give,

receive or discuss information in Uganda? But to what kind of information is available in the

mainstream media which the majority access? What kind is available only via the new

media which only a few access? What is the quality of that information? How sharable is

that information? To what extent is the average person, or the average journalist able to

share that information without fear of negative consequences?

Another question I have battled with focusing on the Ugandan context is: does the

political act of liberalizing media space alone mean we now have expanded opportunities for

diversity and freedom of expression (CITE) Cf. (Curran 1991, p.29-30; van Cuilenberg 1999;

Goldsmiths Media Group 2000, p.22, pp. 53-54; Article XIX 2003, p.3; see also White 2008;

Mwesige 2009; Meadows 2013). Does an explosion in technology mean the majority of

Ugandans access and use it for communication of things that actually matter? [Remember

earlier..the majority seem to use social connections, entertainment]. I have also tried to address

the obstacles. In more economically advanced contexts, people may have many communication
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 25

channels, but they have no time, no internet skills; what are the obstacles in our context?

Poverty features prominently (NEMPS 1 and II) and Chibita 2006) (people cannot afford the

devices, the airtime, the data); skill (people do not know how to open a Facebook account, or to

use Twitter or instagram, or to call into a talk-show) [here I also refer you to the work of Peter

Mwesige on talk-shows and democracy under the interesting topic: can you hear me now?] It

might also be that there are cultural obstacles, like age or gender. There may be infrastructural

challenges like no power, no bandwidth etc. Access may also be hindered by lack of a realistic

language policy (a large part of my research has been on this. Chibita 2000, ….). Finally, some

members of the audience may feel defeated by the dominant culture across the available channels

and become “conscientious objectors” and I have met a few of these. When you have issues like

these, it is then imperative to also speak about regulation.

Regulation

So a related area that has been of interest on my journey has been the regulation of

communication, or what we used to call media regulation. In looking at the regulation of the

communication space in Uganda, I started off in 2010 with a journal article titled:

The evolution of media policy in Uganda. African Communication Research. 3(1).

Pp. 85-119. In this article, I examined patterns in government regulation of the media and the

policy behind these patterns.

At this stage, even though it was already clear that digital was the future, I did not

examine the regulation of digital spaces. I did this in a later article. My major reflections at this

point were that:

The broadcast media were more deliberately regulated than the print media. This

has been discussed widely, and attributed to the relatively larger reach of radio and increasingly
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 26

television. As you may know, illiteracy is not an absolute obstacle for radio or television, while it

is for the print media. The paper notes that there has been a lack of consistency and clear

articulation in media/communication policy over the years [In this paper, I point out

examples in the Press and Journalists’ Act 1995 and the Electronic Media Act (since subsumed

under another) where there are contradictions between the Broadcast Council’s Mandate and

UCC’s mandate. Luckily many of these have now been resolved, thanks to convergence]. I also

note ambiguity in language which make enforcement unpredictable; a tendency to bring back

through the back door laws that had been struck off the books by the courts of law, or to

apply them in getting people arrested, even if briefly to make a point; a pattern of continuously

chipping away at editorial independence contrary to public pronouncements to the contrary; a

tendency to protect public officials from scrutiny under the guise of protection of privacy (woe

unto you if you lose a defamation case against a senior public official]; and leaving a window

for the executive to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of the media which potentially

undermines the independence of the media. One also notes that media regulation in Uganda

has tended to change with seasons, with regulators seeming to be on heightened alert at peak

political moments. There are seasons when the law on anything is rarely invoked, then there

are others where if there is no law one will be found.

The argument that runs through my work on freedom of expression (and media freedom)

in Uganda, therefore, is that it is free, but it is not to be taken for granted. Indeed journalists and

lately other media users and producers are once-in-while reminded whence their freedom comes.

In all fairness, though, this may partly be consistent with Article 43 of the constitution, which

sets the limits for the enjoyment of these freedoms.

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 27

I also tackle matters of the matter of regulation in complex situations in another book

chapter, Chibita M. B. 2011. “Policing popular media in Africa”, in Popular media,

democracy and development, Herman Wasserman (ed). London: Routledge: 268-281.

This chapter, published in 2011 focuses specifically on popular media. The new media

environment has boosted popular culture and given birth to a wider range of popular media

content. This chapter took an Africa-wide perspective, but had a lot to say about the Ugandan

communication space as well.

The major reflections of this chapter were inspired by the popular Luganda phrase:

“abadongo mwefuge”:

In Buganda, when a party warms up, the musicians usually get excited and noisy, and you

will frequently hear the Master of Ceremonies say “abaaye abadongo mwefuge.” [Come on,

musicians, have some self control]. One popular musician, Kafeero, actually composed a song

with this as a refrain.

I have had a fairly close relationship with abadongo (broadly meaning entertainers)

because one of them lived in our house for five or so years. This was a young and upcoming rap

artist named Benezeri. He hated to be called upcoming, by-the-way. Benezeri is now 26, [sorry if

this was a secret] but there were five intense years in his life and ours where the word abadongo

was not a casual word. [Benezeri if you are here, please feel free to wave to the people] Benezeri

has since moved onto other things even though he remains very passionate about music and very

supportive of musicians and the music industry. For details of his work, perhaps the best known

being Zukuuka, I refer you to YouTube, [not now, though].

Popular media
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 28

Even though popular media (along with their content, called popular culture) tend to be

taken lightly, they potentially have a powerful political contribution to make. These are media

that represent culture from the “ordinary people” (there are other phrases for this, these days).

This could be music, poetry, drama etc. They are not mainstream. They originally served a

specific group of people with a common culture and understanding. In some ways, popular

media and popular culture tend merge, and to be associated with a form of protest against

mainstream media and the mainstream culture it carries. In this regard I also refer you to

another chapter titled Digital Activism in Uganda where I discuss how people who feel they

cannot adequately express themselves through the mainstream media use the new media to

mobilise and to frustrate systems they are opposed to.

It used to be that popular culture targeted what some refer to as “omuntu wa wansi”

[atuulira ddala wansi ku ttaka] as opposed to the elite of society. This has changed. Popular

culture can get as sophisticated and as loaded as Shakespeare. Popular media, associated with

popular culture, now include the new media as well. Your mind must be working to find

examples, and I will respect that freedom.

Popular media bring into public discourse topics and often styles that were previously

considered off and not worthy of the public sphere, or simply uncomfortable for some people

both socially and politically. Kadongokamu is a safe example. Rap is another. You can fill in the

gaps. A lot of music falls into this category, because people more easily summon up the courage

to sing their discontent than speak it out. This is especially true if speaking up is known to have

negative consequences. Popular culture tends to be either in a local language, or in a language

that is specific to a sub-culture (like boda-boda people have their own slang, sports people their

own etc.). So using culture a person or a group can be systematically included, or excluded.
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 29

A mini public sphere can take shape and begin having their own private conversation. A

group with common interests can be mobilized. It is important to realise that popular culture

represents an important communication channel when the mainstream channels are for

economic, social, religious of political reasons out-of-bounds. In the current communication

environment when there is so much culture coming in form or music and movies, sometimes

they are the local answer to what they perceive as “invasive” foreign culture.

However, it is also important to realise that popular media can have a dark side, as for

example when they take advantage of their space to be vulgar, or when they are used to incite

hatred, prejudice or violence.

Conclusions

I have met very few people who would disagree that even in a free communication

environment, some level of regulation is necessary for:

Protecting vulnerable groups, like children.

Preventing Hate speech

Protection of reputation

Regulating media ownership and distribution to enhance diversity,

Promoting linguistic diversity

Ensuring affordability (services and content)

Potecting and promoting useful local content

That is not the problem. The problem is how do you regulate these things when the

landscape for which current regulation was designed has changes so fundamentally?
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 30

In recognition of the changes in our communication environment that I described at the

start, in 2017 I did some work with a Kenyan colleague, Dr. Wilson Ugangu. This was a

textbook chapter.

Chibita, M. B. and Ugangu, W. 2017. Social Media Regulation in Africa, in Pieter J. Fourie

(Ed.). 2017. Media Studies: Social (new) Media and Mediated Communication Today.

Volume IV. Cape Town: JUTA.(Media Theory textbook chapter).

I treasure this particular piece because the book in which it was published is part of a

series edited by my supervisor (Promoter), Prof. Fourie. It is also exciting because it was

touching on an emerging area whose regulation (or not) continues to baffle many scholars.

Finally, it is in a textbook that my bazukulu might one day use! However, I realise that we still

have a long way to go in finding a solution for the regulation of the current communication

environment in the public interest. Whether we choose to regulate or not to regulate, we risk

throwing out the baby with the bath-water.

Freedman (2012: 97) captures this dilemma, and I paraphrase him:

i. Digital information is intangible, yet is easy to manipulate so evidence gets

complicated

ii. It is cuts across geographical boundaries

iii. The infrastructure is global

iv. The purpose of internet communication is to make information available to as

many people as possible, not to manage information

It has become difficult for regulators to identify who or what to regulate. If someone

picks up a damaging story on the internet and sends a tweet about it off his phone. Then

thousands of his/her followers read and retweet it via different devices (phones, tablets, desktop
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 31

computers etc.). Then I pick it up and use it as an illustration in the class. Who is liable for

damaging a reputation? How do you regulate Google which aggregates data and information and

avails it for people to apply as they please? As a newspaper or as a broadcast medium? What

about Google’s sources? And so on.

How does the regulator deal with services such as YouTube where a lot of content

business is transacted, but where no one nation can be held liable should something go terribly

wrong and threaten the sovereignty of a nation (example: videos posted by “terrorist” groups)

Print used to be less heavily regulated than radio or television. But then the content was

also easy to distinguish. One was text, the other was video or audio. Does that change now that

many newsrooms are moving towards converged newsrooms and sharing content across what

used to be totally different silos?

Today, you are a good journalist if you can tell a story in print, but also insert a hyperlink

to video or audio, or to a completely other source of additional data. How do you extend

regulation from the original silo (print) to everything else that this single journalist touches? How

do you deal with the damage that results from the metamorphosis that this text undergoes as it is

shared? Who is the “author”?

Blogging is hailed as the ultimate symbol of free expression. Should bloggers be

regulated for thinking aloud about their political or religious views or is this within the

boundaries of freedom of expression? [this as you know, is not a hypothetical question any

more]. Is thinking aloud or free expression in a blog or on Twitter as much a concern as thinking

aloud on national television?

My point is that if the regulatory environment is changing, the approach to regulation

must also change, but must do so without encroaching on those freedoms already guaranteed in
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 32

out constitution. The current media environment calls for innovative regulation, not repression

and not resignation. It is Chinua Achebe who said, citing an endangered species of a bird in

Things Fall Apart, that “since man has learnt to shoot without missing, I have also learnt to fly

without perching.” Many countries in the North have had intense discussions, and have started

changing their approach to regulation to suit the times. In East Africa, Kenya and is

experimenting with a model called co-regulation. This model recognizes that regulators of

communication must work with all stakeholders to reach an understanding, guided by genuine

mutual trust and an understanding of what used to be called the “public interest.”

The Media Council here has started discussing this, and the Uganda Communications

Commission a year or so ago had some dialogue with a number of industry players about how to

regulate in the new environment. Perhaps it is time to begin breaking down the walls between the

regulator and the regulated. It may also be time to intensify dialogue with the people who shape

tomorrow’s media users, as well as researchers to find a model that works for Uganda. While I

do not advocate for totally eliminating state regulation of the communication sector, I am

persuaded that it is time for the state to begin engaging partners to manage the new

communication space more efficiently and in a way that fosters a free and diverse

communication environment, for the sake of our democracy.

Current engagements

Future plans

Thank you
BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 33
 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 34

References

Last Name, F. M. (Year). Article Title. Journal Title, Pages From - To.

Last Name, F. M. (Year). Book Title. City Name: Publisher Name

 BETWEEN FREEDOM AND REGULATION 35

Footnotes

Chibita, M. and N. Mfaume (2011). "Language Policy for Radio in Uganda and Tanzania: Public
Sphere or ‘Public Sphericules’?" New Mawazo 10(3): 236-256.
The article discusses language policy in Tanzania and Uganda as it relates to the media.

Nowak-Teter, E. (2018). "Agenda-setting theory and the new media." 33.